Prepper Forum / Survivalist Forum banner

1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
91 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
To me, the second amendment specifically doesn't specify what, when, where, or how to carry.
This being because its up to the Individual to identify to themselves what, when, where, and how they are comfortable carrying. This is also so someone can asses if they should CC or OC.(depending on what environment/people they are in/around)

As for being trained, We as firearm owners and FFL's should take the responsibility of ensuring others have at least the safety training down before handing over a firearm.(is this an infringement? I don't think so because peoples lives are at stake, rights with responsibility. Help out friends and family, with ffl you have many options.)
If not the government will take that up, and you will have to pay for permission(aka CCW) who knows where that money actually goes. You don't need a permit to buy food or to breath, you shouldn't need one for self defense. CC use to be legal, until criminals started doing it, and they still do.(that's why there's CCW's)

*Mudook v. Penn. 319 US 105: (1943)
"No state may convert any secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it."


I don't have anything against either form, my issue is the pay for permission CCW's.

I think both CC, and OC have their strengths and weaknesses. Ultimately Its up to the comfort of the individual.

'Also I wouldn't recommend carrying at all when your going to be in secluded areas by yourself. This being Police are human too, they can snap. All he/she has to do is say you went for your gun, or knife even. You don't really have to be an immanent threat anymore. (this part is just my opinion)'

I know some more Supreme Court rulings if anyone is interested, or refer you to the person who taught me.

share you thoughts respectfully please!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,791 Posts
As for being trained, We as firearm owners and FFL's should take the responsibility of ensuring others have at least the safety training down before handing over a firearm.(is this an infringement? I don't think so because peoples lives are at stake, rights with responsibility. Help out friends and family, with ffl you have many options.)
Yes it is an infringement. We don't train people how to speak english before they are endowed with the right to free speech. It may be a good idea, but it most definitely should not be enforced by the federal nanny state government.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
91 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Let me rephrase and elaborate, your right.

The FFL should show and tell the proper way to safely handle a firearm, this way nothing will actually prevent them from receiving their purchase.
This way the buyer is getting a safety lesson for free, no permit required, there's no law actually preventing the person from getting the firearm. Rights with responsibility, you may know all the proper ways of handling a firearm, but another may not. Its a way to limit "accidents" from happening. Better to keep the government out of it and let private citizens help each other.

To me it would be compared to this, everyone has a right to vote, but we do everything we can to ensure people make an informed vote.

It would be like giving the person all the info on safely handling the firearm, then what they do after is on them.

Did I clear that up or should I elaborate more?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,207 Posts
Sorry for being the libertarian on this subject but here goes

Everyone regardless of experience or education should be able to buy and carry a firearm regardless of education or experience, weather the firearm is conceiled or open carried is a mute point.

(edit.. this include felons previously convicted and having served their sentences are set free)

This is my interpretation of the 2nd amendment, nobody is liable for the use or misuse of a firearm except the person that uses it.

All these "safety lessons" and "permits" are just government Bullshat for restricting the 2nd amendment which is very clear that the right to bear arms shall NOT be restricted by the government.

What people don't really think about is that the stupid people with guns will quickly be reduced as the reasonable people with guns will shoot their stupid asses off the street in short order.

Don't make this complicated, stupid people with guns will die and the law abiding citizens with guns will abide by the law and either kill the offenders or intimidate the lawless people by force.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,068 Posts
Let me rephrase and elaborate, your right.

The FFL should show and tell the proper way to safely handle a firearm, this way nothing will actually prevent them from receiving their purchase.
This way the buyer is getting a safety lesson for free, no permit required, there's no law actually preventing the person from getting the firearm. Rights with responsibility, you may know all the proper ways of handling a firearm, but another may not. Its a way to limit "accidents" from happening. Better to keep the government out of it and let private citizens help each other.

To me it would be compared to this, everyone has a right to vote, but we do everything we can to ensure people make an informed vote.

It would be like giving the person all the info on safely handling the firearm, then what they do after is on them.

Did I clear that up or should I elaborate more?
I assume, by your posts, that you are an FFL. I do not mean to offend, but I think your idea is really bad for one reason: it opens FFLs up to civil suits coming out the butt. If an FFL sells a pistol to a guy that seems okay, but goes out of the store/gunshow/living room/whatever and shoots himself, the family can come back and sue the FFL for everything because he SOLD A GUN to the guy. Sorry, but I cannot get behind that.

Just as an aside, if the feds or the state were to try and institute some kind of safety training requirement to buy a gun I would be equally opposed to it, but for very different reasons. But that is the subject of another rant.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
9,219 Posts
Gun safety training used to begin at home and at a young age. This should not have changed.

When you buy a stove, do you need to have training on how not to burn yourself or set you home on fire?

Part of being a parent used to be to teach your children responsibility. Unfortunately many have given up that concept.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,116 Posts
Open Carry or Conceal Carry are both fine with me but your state will determine (obviously and sadly). I don't believe that the federal government should be involved in anything that has to do with firearms...PERIOD. So the whole concept of FFL is Infringement in my opinion. Not against safety or responsibility, that is first and foremost but I agree with Montana Rancher. Govt BullShat at its finest! Courses are offered at many gun stores, NRA, Boy Scouts etc. Get a mentor or be a mentor but get the government the hell out.

Fun side story, had the family over to my place for Thanksgiving and yesterday we all shot sporting clay on my mini-sporting clay setup. My damn brother hadn't shot in years, last time we shot together his gun seized up due to lack of maintenance which prompted me to harass the hell out of him like any good big brother should. So yesterday he says that he was just going to watch and let everyone else shoot. Of course we were all razzing the hell out of him about his lack of skill etc. So he finally gives in and picks up my youngest sons Mossberg Maverick pump shot gun, ignoring the Browning Citori over/under and proceeds to knock out 10 clays in a row with a damn short barrel $250 pump shotgun!. After # 10, he just smiles, puts the gun down and walks back to the house.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,123 Posts
As far as the charge is concerned... AZ only charges $60 for their permits and that only covers administrative fees - the background check, fingerprints, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meangreen

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,308 Posts
I don't OC if you do and are grown up it's your call. Felons carrying? Only if we adhere to my rules on incarceration.
1)If we trust them release them without restriction
2)If we don't trust them why release them?
3)If we are not going to release them why maintain them?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,417 Posts
First thing bhtacticaloutdoors your talking about rights from the People's Republic of California. I'm a native of southern California and as for rights, you have none unless your willing to pay for them. I remember all of the BS rules, like making the customer demonstrate their ability to handle a weapon before they could purchase. How long is the wait now before you can pick up your purchase? Leave the state and find out what it's like to have rights. I think remaining in California with an FFL is only going to end with you going to jail for some frivolous charge from the state or the ATF.

Here in the wilds of New Mexico people open carry without people bating an eye. Oh we still have the liberals that freak out but F them. Concealed carry holders in New Mexico is at an all time high. I do think there are people that should not be carrying because of mental issues and or drug issues. Probably 80% of the people I interact with on a daily basis are armed(Ranch owners, cowboys, hunters,etc.) I believe a armed citizen is a law enforcement officers best friend.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,115 Posts
Sorry for being the libertarian on this subject but here goes

Everyone regardless of experience or education should be able to buy and carry a firearm regardless of education or experience, weather the firearm is conceiled or open carried is a mute point.

(edit.. this include felons previously convicted and having served their sentences are set free)

This is my interpretation of the 2nd amendment, nobody is liable for the use or misuse of a firearm except the person that uses it.

All these "safety lessons" and "permits" are just government Bullshat for restricting the 2nd amendment which is very clear that the right to bear arms shall NOT be restricted by the government.

What people don't really think about is that the stupid people with guns will quickly be reduced as the reasonable people with guns will shoot their stupid asses off the street in short order.

Don't make this complicated, stupid people with guns will die and the law abiding citizens with guns will abide by the law and either kill the offenders or intimidate the lawless people by force.
I agree 100%... Couldn't have been said any better...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
91 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
As far as the charge is concerned... AZ only charges $60 for their permits and that only covers administrative fees - the background check, fingerprints, etc.
That's whats wrong, your in their system now and you paid them to do it. A background check in cali is 25-35 bucks depending on how bad they want to rip you off. Then the sheriff "recovers his cost" around $150 for the ccw? whats wrong with using the background check you already did when you bought the gun?

Criminals get firearms regardless, so we pay extra for pointless background checks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,643 Posts
Void of any criminal conviction of a serious nature . No one should have the right to tell me when and where I can carry or how.
But we live in a world where others do not care much about others basic rights.
It is the act some commits with a weapon that is a crime not having it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
91 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Sorry for being the libertarian on this subject but here goes

Everyone regardless of experience or education should be able to buy and carry a firearm regardless of education or experience, weather the firearm is conceiled or open carried is a mute point.

(edit.. this include felons previously convicted and having served their sentences are set free)

This is my interpretation of the 2nd amendment, nobody is liable for the use or misuse of a firearm except the person that uses it.

All these "safety lessons" and "permits" are just government Bullshat for restricting the 2nd amendment which is very clear that the right to bear arms shall NOT be restricted by the government.

What people don't really think about is that the stupid people with guns will quickly be reduced as the reasonable people with guns will shoot their stupid asses off the street in short order.

Don't make this complicated, stupid people with guns will die and the law abiding citizens with guns will abide by the law and either kill the offenders or intimidate the lawless people by force.
I agree, and I'm glad there is libertarian ideals. those keep us close to the right.(where we should be)

I think they should just show and tell all the safety stuff as the firearm is being handed over. No one in their right mind would hand over a firearm to kid that's never seen or touched a firearm before, and then tell them to figure it out. As bad as it is to say there are some child like adults out there, it would suck to be that guy next to him at the range, and his 'not knowing, and inexperience' gets you or someone you care for killed. If its done this way no one is being prevented their right, FFL's would have a release of liability once that firearm is turned over to the customer. No government or laws involved, so the FFL's would make the call if they want to inform people about safety.

What I mean by rights with responsibility, is the same as a right is a right as long as it doesn't harm others. That's how criminals get rights restricted, because they have proven they cannot be responsible enough to not cause harm to others.

I know there are people who have been shafted by the court systems, but that's another topic.

We're pretty much on the same page, as individuals of the republic we have a responsibility, if we cant be responsible then the uninformed will vote people in to makes laws. I know the police work for the politicians now and enforce the BS laws. Something the Oath keepers are working on, I'm trying to get info on a couple of sheriff's running against our unconstitutional sheriff Adam Christianson....

I'm going to move from cali if this next election doesn't turn out. This is another thing, the constitution is the supreme law of the land, yet it varies state to state.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,791 Posts
I think they should just show and tell all the safety stuff as the firearm is being handed over.
Could you imagine having to take a driving lesson every time you bought a car? You're talking about the exact same thing.

Or what if they told you that you couldn't take your child home (your own flesh and blood) until you took a parenting class hosted by the hospital? Oh, that's right, they already do that shit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
91 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Could you imagine having to take a driving lesson every time you bought a car? You're talking about the exact same thing.

Or what if they told you that you couldn't take your child home (your own flesh and blood) until you took a parenting class hosted by the hospital? Oh, that's right, they already do that shit.
Are you reading my entire posts or just selecting one thing from them?

Usually car dealers tell/show you where all the operating functions of the car are, every car is different. This would be compared to showing the safety of a gun.
What your comparison is saying that I'm suggesting they go to the range and show them how to use the firearm,which is not what I'm saying at all.

Its more like what I said before, people have a right to vote, but a responsibility to make an informed vote. How they choose to vote after they're informed is on them, and no one is stopping or denying them their right to vote.

Its a little difficult to type out ever detail without writing a small book, idk if I'm being clear enough.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,207 Posts
To me, the second amendment specifically doesn't specify what, when, where, or how to carry.
This being because its up to the Individual to identify to themselves what, when, where, and how they are comfortable carrying. This is also so someone can asses if they should CC or OC.(depending on what environment/people they are in/around)

As for being trained, We as firearm owners and FFL's should take the responsibility of ensuring others have at least the safety training down before handing over a firearm.(is this an infringement? I don't think so because peoples lives are at stake, rights with responsibility. Help out friends and family, with ffl you have many options.)
If not the government will take that up, and you will have to pay for permission(aka CCW) who knows where that money actually goes. You don't need a permit to buy food or to breath, you shouldn't need one for self defense. CC use to be legal, until criminals started doing it, and they still do.(that's why there's CCW's)

*Mudook v. Penn. 319 US 105: (1943)
"No state may convert any secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it."


I don't have anything against either form, my issue is the pay for permission CCW's.

I think both CC, and OC have their strengths and weaknesses. Ultimately Its up to the comfort of the individual.

'Also I wouldn't recommend carrying at all when your going to be in secluded areas by yourself. This being Police are human too, they can snap. All he/she has to do is say you went for your gun, or knife even. You don't really have to be an immanent threat anymore. (this part is just my opinion)'

I know some more Supreme Court rulings if anyone is interested, or refer you to the person who taught me.

share you thoughts respectfully please!
Not reading anything above

The "Bill or rights" is a Negative charter

Sorry for the layman's speak but it will become clearer

When we read the bill of rights it doesn't say what the governments rights are, it says what their right are not....

The Government has NO RIGHT to restrict free speech

the Government has no right to restrict firearm ownership

4th The States shall elect Senators (bypassed by a future amendment but I believe it should still be used)

My point is that the "bill of rights" is to LIMIT the government, but recently it has been used to expand it

We really are getting to the point open revolt, if it wasnt' for the monetary system everyone would be on board
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,791 Posts
Are you reading my entire posts or just selecting one thing from them?
No, I'm reading the entire posts, I just quote small parts of them in my responses for the sake of brevity. Also since I'm responding to that one part, it seems more appropriate.

I understand what you're getting at, but I am picking on the methods on purpose. The fact is that yes, FFL's whether private or running a brick and mortar store should be capable of showing you those features. You should also be capable of learning them on your own. The responsibility however should be yours, and yours alone. The FFL is simply a middle man running a background check.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
I am of the opinion that every individual should be able to carry. Furthermore, I feel that if everyone was able to open carry, the world would be a better place, because we would ALL have protection. Just one man's opinion. Unfortunately, I live in California, and in my particular county, it's dang near impossible to get a CCW, unless the authorities deem you worthy, which means you have to basically been attacked once before, and are in constant danger. At least that's how I read it.
Scott
 
  • Like
Reactions: bhtacticaloutdoors

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,417 Posts
Are you reading my entire posts or just selecting one thing from them?

Usually car dealers tell/show you where all the operating functions of the car are, every car is different. This would be compared to showing the safety of a gun.
What your comparison is saying that I'm suggesting they go to the range and show them how to use the firearm,which is not what I'm saying at all.

Its more like what I said before, people have a right to vote, but a responsibility to make an informed vote. How they choose to vote after they're informed is on them, and no one is stopping or denying them their right to vote.

Its a little difficult to type out ever detail without writing a small book, idk if I'm being clear enough.
Owning a firearm is a right, owning a car is a privilege.
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top